Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/15/1986CITY COUNCIL 15 DECEMBER 1986 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 15 December 1986, at 7:00 p.m, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Molly Lambert, Michael Flaherty, George Mona Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Wendy Schroeder, Business Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Donald Whitten, Water Pollution Dept; Sally Conrad, State Senator; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Stephen Crowley, Tom Nelson, Sherry Balcar, Marion and Loren Budelmann, Wendy Copp, Judy Newman, Kathy Huffman, Jim Loewen, Gail LeBlanc, Beatrice Rock, Bill Orlen, John Hodgson, Carl Lavallee, Don Picard, Ed Slayton, J. Patrick Brennan, Bill Rowell, Tonya Schultz, Chris Davis, David Lavallee, Douglas Riseden, Kevin Hayes, Henry E. Parro, Ernest Rheaume, Bert Moffatt, Glenn Gerlanek; State Trans. Agency. Comments & questions from the public (not related to items on the Agenda) No issues were raised. Continue discussion on the Burlington Southern Connector Project Bert Moffatt of the City of Burlington explained that he started on the project in March and until 2 weeks ago was only peripherally aware that was any problem with Queen City Park. He noted this is an Agency of Transportation plan with 95% federal funding, 3% state funding, and 2% local funding. Between 1977 and 1982, the plans went through numerous Act 250 hearings. There have been 2 meetings with Queen City Park people. He said that bids on the project open this Friday. Mr. Gerlanek of the State Transportation Agency said the Agency is acting as agents for Burlington, providing technical and professional expertise. He said they have tried to work with Burlington because the Connector will be a city street when it's done. He added that Burlington has succeeded in modifying the road to meet many of its wishes. Mr. Farrar raised the question on the intersection design at Shelburne Rd. and noted it was different from what was presented at the necessity hearing though the same as what went to Act 250. He said that S. Burlington's concern was getting traffic up and down Shelburne Rd. with traffic feeding in continuously. Mr. Mona asked how the Agency anticipates traffic at the intersection as compared to the present state. Mr. Moffatt said there will be 2 lanes for left turning traffic. He added that engineers feel it will accommodate traffic at all times with some delay at very peak times (such as the day after Thanksgiving). Mr. Loewen said he sensed an adversarial relationship based on words such as "too late" and "outrageous" that have been used. He said the road is not in concrete yet. Their request is for a Cloverleaf ramp instead of the proposed Ramp C, so that there is a merge concept. As it is designed, traffic will back up at the right turn ramp and block those left turn lanes. Mr. Gerlanek said their aim is to have traffic flow smoothly and what Mr. Loewen said makes sense to him. Mr. Mona added that if the S. Burlington connector had been approved, many of the shortcomings of this road would not exist. Mr. Moffatt then read portions of letters from the Agency of Transportation into the record. He said it had been their feeling that all issues had been resolved with S. Burlington. His feeling was that the project is "a go", and that it will work. A resident of Queen City Park asked why Ramp D was included. Mr. Moffatt said the traffic count indicated it was needed. Mr. Farrar asked why there is no southbound only exit from Sears so that traffic exiting that way won't have to go through the traffic light. Both Mr. Moffatt and Mr. Gerlanek said that made sense to them. The question of timing was then raised. A resident said it was her understanding that after the interchange is complete it will be 6 years before the Connector is open to Home Ave. Mr. Moffatt said he thought the whole thing would be complete by 1991 or 1992 and that Phase II may allow traffic off at Lakeside. Mr. Mona asked why the easy part to Lakeside couldn't be built first so that when the mess is complete there will be somewhere for the traffic to go. Mr. Moffatt said that Contract 1 stops 300 ft. south of Home Ave. Mr. Loewen asked when Pine St. will be closed. Mr. Moffatt said when part of Contract 2 is complete. There will be a temporary road for Pine St. to cross to QCP Rd. He added they only began thinking about Contract 2 stopping at Lakeside in September. Perhaps the work could be done simultaneously. He stressed that the goal is to get the road into the city, not to have it sit there. Another resident said he had heard it will be cheaper to build the intersection now and that's why it's being rushed through. Mr. Gerlanek said the bidding this week is to try to lock in funding. Work has to start 30 days from the contract date. Mr. Loewen asked is there any reason, other than "this is the way it's now designed" that the contract can't be changed. Mr. Gerlanek said it would have to go back through the necessity hearing stage unless there was a willing seller of land required. A citizen asked if there couldn't be an addendum added to the contract as is often done in construction. If this could be done, it could satisfy the Agency, Burlington and Queen City Park. Mr. Gerlanek said he could get an answer on that. Mr. Moffatt noted there is already progress on a pedestrian overpass from Pine St. Mr. Loewen asked if it is possible to humanize the Pine St. situation. He said if Pine St. will have a temporary on-grade intersection, why can't it be maintained? He said that would help S. Burlington residents get to Burlington without crossing 2 chain link fences and a New Jersey barrier. He said they have done a study which shows that 87% of the people on Pine St, Home Ave. and Southcrest want Pine St. to remain open. Mr. Moffatt said keeping it open would require re-opening the Act 250 hearings. Mr. Gerlanek said there are serious problems involved in re-design, including contracts, time, matching funds, etc. Keeping Pine St. open would involve raising the grade of the Southern Connector, and it would be impossible to keep connector traffic from turning onto Pine St. Mr. Mona said he can see things being much worse for 4 or 5 years on Shelburne Rd. in order to get traffic downtown. Mr. Moffatt said there will be temporary detour conditions during construction, and it will be tough going. Mr. Loewen said he realizes that Burlington wants an urban typical design to Farrell Drive, and that's what the QCP residents want. They don't want a chain link fence or a New Jersey barrier separating them from the rest of South Burlington. Mr. Moffatt said the best he could get was a redesign of the median. Mr. Gerlanek said you can't slow traffic down enough to prevent cars from crossing over. He added they would give Burlington the urban typical design if they would accept the liability that goes with it. Mr. Flaherty suggested the city write up the suggestions that were considered possible and if the Agency agrees with them, have S. Burlington present them to Act 250 and see if they will accept them. Mr. Moffatt said that made sense to him. Mr. Farrar said these suggestions would include a Sears southbound only exit, use in one or both directions of Pine Street. He added that since Pine St. will be open during the construction phase, it could be assessed to see how it would work on a permanent basis. A resident said if a light were placed there, it could also extend the urban typical design. Mr. Moffatt said the federal people want a barrier, so he didn't know how to answer that. Another resident stressed that there is a parish being divided in two, people being cut off from part of their city, and that is important enough to consider it. Mr. Loewen then raised the pedestrian question, and Mr. Gerlanek said he thought this was an area where he hoped they could find some solutions the residents didn't have "to pry" out of them. He said they would have to build a use ratio for it and they will look at the numbers. A resident asked how the City of Burlington could close off a South Burlington road. Mr. Moffatt said that now residents can't turn onto QCP Rd. from south or north which they will be able to do with the new design as there will be a legal left turn. Residents questioned how legal it is since they will have to go through a parking lot. The question was asked if it is totally impossible to Burlington and South Burlington together to find better solutions. Mr. Gerlanek said the Agency can't act independently, only if the City of Burlington asks. Mr. Loewen said "what about South Burlington?" Mr. Mona asked Mr. Moffatt what the City of Burlington had to say now that Mr. Gerlanek had put them on the spot. Mr. Moffatt asked why South Burlington didn't complain sooner. Mr. Farrar said all the hearings which he attended had a different design which was changed before Act 250. He acknowledged that S. Burlington probably should have been aware of the changes, but they were buried in hundreds of pages of plans and information. But, he stressed, that is not the question now. Mr. Gerlanek suggested a letter from South Burlington to the Agency outlining its concerns and proposals, and the Agency would have to determine whether it could continue in the face of serious opposition. The letter should include all the points made tonight. Mr. Loewen stressed that no hearings were held in South Burlington at any time, and another QCP resident added that it was hard for them to get information even when they asked, and when they got a map it was wrong and unreadable. Mr. Gerlanek said when they get the letter they will try to identify what changes could be made by addendum and then work with Burlington and come up with some decisions. Mr. Farrar thanked Messrs. Moffatt and Gerlanek for their time and said he hoped something positive could come from this meeting. 3. Consider adoption of a Resolution increasing landfill fees Mr. Szymanski said in order to be more competitive with other landfills, rates should be increased or the city will have more than its share. Mr. Farrar then read the Resolution (attached). Mr. Mona moved that the Resolution as read be adopted. Ms. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Appoint 3 people to solid waste distict study committee as requested by Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Szymanski recommended himself, Peter Jacob and Sonny Audette. Mr. Flaherty recommended that Steve Crowley be included and that Mr. Szymanski be an alternate. Mr. Flaherty then moved that Peter Jacob, Sonny Audette and Steve Crowley be appointed to the solid waste district study committee with Mr. Szymanski serving as alternate. Mr. Mona seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Audette and Mr. Brennan said that the committee hopes to come with a plan for a regional system so it can go on the March ballot. 5. Meet with Dan Pillsbury regarding the subdivision of the Semicon property Mr. Pillsbury said that S. Burlington has agreed to the subdivision of the Semicon land with Lane Press interested in the 31 acre piece. He said that he leases 600 acres in the Southeast Quadrant, and that the City should be very seriously concerned with what goes on with that land. He added that the security of his agricultural lands will be preserved, and he would like as much support as possible to be able to obtain a 10 or 15 year lease to continue his operation. He said he has upgraded the land to prevent soil erosion and has even provided a ballpark and mowing services for Mitel and Semicon. 6. Hear 2 police grievances Chris Davis, representing the Union, presented grievance 86-04. He advised that Tom Fraga has been promoted to a detective position following notice posted on 9/11/86. The union is unclear whether this is a temporary or permanent position. If it is temporary, it is their contention it is in violation since it is more than 90 days since posting of the notice. If it is permanent, then his corporal position should be vacant, and the City says the position is not open. He added that under Article IV of the agreement, there have been 4 corporals in the department since 1985, and they are entitled to maintain a fourth corporal. They would like to go through the normal procedure to fill the vacancy. Steve Stitzel said that Cpl. Fraga was assigned to duties in the detective unit until otherwise assigned. The City can assign personnel where they are best suited. He stressed that there was no promotion but a lateral transfer from a corporal in the patrol unit to one in the detective unit. He said there must be a distinction between job assignments and rank changes. Ranks represent a heirarchy, and you are paid differently at different ranks. Police officers at different ranks may hold the same job description. The rank of detective had been assigned to people in the job description of criminal investigator but the pay is the same as corporal. The contract says corporals can be assigned to criminal investigator, and this is what happened in Tom Fraga's case. Both his rank and pay have been unchanged. Mr. Davis replied that no matter how you say it, there is an opening. With the departure of the sergeant who left, there is still an opening, whether it's a corporal or a detective. Ms. Schroeder said there are still 17 bargaining unit members and none has been eliminated. It was noted that the original decision to have 4 corporals was a management decision, and Mr. Farrar said since management made the decision to increase the number of corporals by one in the past, it could now decrease it by one. Mr. Davis said there was a letter from the union at the time of the increase saying they would grant a one-time waiver since the position had not been posted. They believe now that a specific benefit is being lost since a member cannot apply for a position that has been in existence for a year and a half. Mr. Stitzel said Article 1 of Section IV says changes cannot affect the pay scale of people in various positions, and this has been adhered to. All members have the same benefits they had. He noted that for a number of years there had been only one uniformed corporal to each team. The adding of another corporal to one team was then an unusual circumstance. Officer Schultz said the union agreed to the waiver because they were told the city was growing and the position was needed. Lt. Kruger, then acting chief, had said this would allow for more promotions down the line. Mr. Farrar said he would like to hear what Lt. Kruger recollects, and other members agreed. Mr. Davis said they would be willing to have Lt. Kruger present at the next meeting and would waive the time period for action on the grievance until the next scheduled City Council meeting. The second grievance involved an interpretation of Article 12, Section 7. A position has been posted, and the City says it doesn't need an exam in order to fill it but will rely on the exam given in October, 1986. The union believes an exam should follow the posting. Management says it will be too cumbersome. There is a person who became eligible to take the exam between the time it was given in October and the time of the posting of the position. Mr. Stitzel said the contract says scores of tests are valid for a year. The issue is whether there is an individual who is being prejudiced here. An officer said another issue is whether other officers should be able to take the test in order to better their scores. Mr. Stitzel said the department felt that more than 2 years minimum experience with the department was necessary. But Mr. Farrar and Mr. Flaherty noted that the job was posted as "a minimum of 2 years active experience with the South Burlington Police Department." Mr. Mona said he felt the officer was owed an opportunity to test for the position. After a brief discussion, consensus was that all qualified to take the test should be allowed to do so. Mr. Mona then moved that the Council allow the administration of the test to all those eligible at the time of posting. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Mr. Davis said the union waives its right to have the job reposted and asks that the test be given by January 15. They agreed to 10 days notice of the exam date. In the vote which followed, the motion passed unanimously. 7. Review Planning Commission Agenda Mr. Mona noted that Larkin is talking about expanding Pillsbury Manor on Williston Rd. 8. Review Minutes of 1 December 1986 Mr. Flaherty moved that the Minutes of 1 December 1986 be approved as written. Mr. Mona seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 9. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. 10. Note renewals Mr. Szymanski presented 3 renewals: one for $32,000 on the Mack truck; one for $91,600 on the road improvement bond issue, which is being handled as a note; and one for $8,800 on the road grader. The rate for all three is 5.15%. Ms. Lambert moved that the Council sign the notes as presented. Mr. Flaherty seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 11. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council meet as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Szymanski presented a request for liquor license from the new Chinese restaurant located at the old Bogart's site on Williston Rd. Police and Fire chiefs have no problem, but there are back taxes of $8,400 due. The owner says he will pay by the end of the month. Board members agreed that the owner should sign an agreement to pay. Mr. Mona then moved that the Board approve the liquor license as presented on the condition that an agreement to pay taxes due by the end of the month be signed by the owner. Mr. Flaherty seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. . .~ -~ . . .. .. ~. ~ .... ~. .. .~ . . -~ . .. ~. ~~... In accordance wit. Section 6 Permits, Subsection b, Use Pee of tllc Soutii Burlington Sanitary Landfill Ordinance, thc City Council hereby resolves to amend tile landfill perrnit fee as established October 2, 1978. Residents and non-residents, doing business or performing j~ork within tne City nauling waste generated within the City, the following fce schedule shall apply: Residents own libusehold waste, hauled by resident No Charge Pickup trucks or vehicles with utility trailcrs $ 5.00 *Pac~ers and roll-off containers s.oo/Y~ All vehicles and roll-off containers carrying . . 5 .OO/YD non-residential/household waste in a non- compacted form 5 .OO/YD All dump or rack style trucks carrying other than demolition All trucks carrying demolition 6.00/YD 2 .OO/PER TIRE *All Packers To Ue Ratcd According 'To Rating Capacity Platcs Attached To Units By Manufacturer. Dated this 15th day of December, 1986 P. ,,.gkY ;,‘7 7 II )ff '2- George J ./ odd Francis X. Murray